- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by 97198 (talk) 04:02, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Patagosaurus edit
- ... that Patagosaurus (illustrated) is a genus of sauropod dinosaur from Patagonia that is known from an almost complete skeleton and partial skull?
- ALT1... that Patagosaurus (illustrated) is a genus of sauropod dinosaur that, when it was described, was a chimaera of two different species?
- Reviewed: Attopsis
5x expanded by Reid,iain james (talk). Self nominated at 15:23, 15 September 2014 (UTC).
Dates, expansion, verifiability and other policies all seem fine. However, the proposed hooks are focused on info that does not seem very clear, as it does not seem certain if the fossils all belong to the Patagosaurus or if they got mixed with unrelated fossils (and, in turn, if those specimens really belonged to it or the mixed fossils are screwing up the results). I would prefer a hook focused on something known for certain, for example the size. But feel free to correct me if I understood something wrong, and either of the hooks is saying something known for sure. Cambalachero (talk) 18:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- @Cambalachero: I think that I have corrected these issues. In the original hook I removed the uncertainty of how many specimens are known, and in the alternate I modified the phrasing and wording. Is this good? IJReid (talk) 18:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Seems good to go now. I prefer the first hook. Cambalachero (talk) 18:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
